Don't Overreact
Don't Overreact
I've never been one to overreact. I remember watching the 2006 AFC Championship game between the Colts and Patriots. Growing up in Indiana made me a pretty big Colts fan. Going into halftime the Colts were losing 21-6. The Patriots had scored three touchdowns and the Colts hadn't scored one. No team had ever come back from that score in a championship game. The odds were completely against the team I was cheering for.
Everyone watching the game with me was convinced that the Colts were done for. They had lost hope. My reaction was not the same as my friends. I've always believe it's not over till it's over. There's always hope until the last second. Some may say it's a naive demeanor, but I believe it's a realistic optimism.
I also tend to be a realist. I don't give up hope easily, but I always look at cost vs. reward. I look at odds and possibilities and acknowledge the chance of failure. Some have seen that as pessimism but it is very different. Acknowledging the possibility or even probability of failure is not the same as losing hope or admitting defeat. It is most definitely not seeing the world through a negative lens.
I have always looked down on those who prophesied doom and gloom, those who predicted the collapse of a nation because of public policy changes, religious perception or economic fluctuation. I believe that more often than not paranoia causes chaos for no reason. This world functions with an ebb and flow. Like the tides it can be high or low, but it's always moving toward one or the other and then back again.
I don't like to overreact. I like to be a realist and an optimistic one, but I must admit that it is getting more and more difficult everyday in this country to remain an optimist. The reality is not always that optimistic. The media these days tends to focus on the problems overseas. We hear about countries in Europe going bankrupt as the media shows us that things aren't as bad here as they are over there. We see on our TV and computer screens pictures of war torn countries and we can see that things aren't as bad here as they are over there. We hear about innocent people being attacked everyday by terrorists and once again we are reminded that things are always worse over there.
The problem is that over there is now coming here. I write this at the risk of sounding like an extremist and an overreactor. We are now living in a country that is no longer doing the things that once made it the envy of the world. This country is now doing the exact opposite of those things. We prospered because we allowed individuals to work hard and excel. We had an economic system that rewarded patience and hard work. We had a system of government that actually governed without excess control. These things are now a thing of the past.
This past election has proven that the American people no longer want this type of government. They want a government that does not govern but coddles. They want an economy that does not reward but redistributes. They want system that does not encourage hard work and ingenuity but gives to everyone equally no matter their effort.
This is not the country that was formed by our founding fathers. I can tell you that if the vote for President was left to our founding fathers we would have had a drastically different outcome. I don't just say that because I disagree with President Obama's political philosophy. I say it because of the very words of some of those who helped to form this nation.
At this point I want to make it very clear that I am not condeming any individuals. I do not hate President Obama. I do not think he is a bad person or that he is evil. I simply disagree with his political philosophy. I believe that his ideas, if allowed to be carried out to fruition, will destroy this nation and many livelihoods in the process.
Benjamin Franklin
In the words of Benjamin Franklin, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” Some reasons people voted for Obama were things like "free" health care, cheaper college, cheaper housing and a stimulated economy that puts more money in my pockets regardless of how hard I work for it. All this provided through the means of government programs and government intervention.
Many people voted not for Obama or for the Democrat or for who was best fit to run this country. Many people voted, instead, for money in their own pocket. Money for themselves. This is what Franklin told us would be the warning sign for the end of this government.
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson wrote many things in his life. One of the most popular and more important was the Declaration of Independence. His ideas were foremost in the forming of this nation. He also wrote that, “A wise and frugal government … shall leave [men] otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
According to Jefferson, a good government does not take from those who work and earn money to give to those who do not. He never says not to give to those who are in need. He simply stated that this is not the role of government. According to Jefferson, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare..."
It is not within the scope of congress or our government to provide for general welfare of it's citizens and yet we currently have an entire section of our government that does nothing but that. To do this a government would need, what seemed to Jefferson, unlimited powers and more then likely an equal amount of resources. Since we as a country are determined to have our government assume these responsibilities we must also realize that those resources are taken directly from us. More importantly and even more disturbing is that the government must get its power to do this by taking it from us along with outr paychecks.
James Madison
James Madison had strong feelings about this as well. According to him, “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
This means that Madison was against the idea of a system governed by our Constitution that provided for "general welfare." To do so would change the very nature of the Constitution into something that not even it's authors would recognize. This is a strong statement against what our country is currently doing.
If that were not clear enough he also wrote that, "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” And yet our politicians now run entire campaigns completely on how they are going to use the money of the rich to help those less fortunate. That sounds a lot like charity to me.
The idea that we must provide health care to those who need it, can't afford it or who are too lazy to work for it, sounds a lot like charity to me. Bad charity, but charity none the less.
Philanthropy in Government
Philanthropy is not a function of our government, nor should it ever be. There are many who like to point out that the invention of government intervention has squelched the human initiative to help his fellow man. Charitable giving dropped after both the beginning of the New Deal and the Great Society programs. The government involvement as, for some reason, caused others to stop giving.
There are many reasons why this could be. One of the more popular theories is that one might think, "if the government is going to take it from me anyway and give it to them, then why should I give at all?" But there's really no way to point to one thought and say that's why.
The biggest point is the use of the funds. Is it possible to eliminate poverty? I do not believe so. It would be nice if it were, but no one has found a way to do it in all of human history. I highly doubt that a new policy change in our government will make much of a difference.
The government is known for it's ability to mismanage money, go into debt and add unnecessary policies and procedures that are costly. If I was hiring a man to manage my finances, I would not hire the man who ran a company millions of dollars in debt. Our government does not manage our tax dollars well and that point has never been more clear. Why would we allow them to use those same tax dollars to "help" those in need.
If I donated ten thousand dollars to a charity and then found out that the director of that charity had their own private jet, expense account, private secretary, "company" car etc. I would stop donating to that charity. Obviously a large portion of my money is going to someone who clearly doesn't need charity. Why don't people get equally get upset about the government creating and expending the overhead costs of our imposed charitable tax dollars?
We fail to use the same logic when thinking about our government that we use in everyday life with everything else.
The point is that the more the government tries to mandate helping others, the less others really get help.
Atlas
Ayn Rand wrote a book called Atlas Shrugged. It's been a best seller multiple times and it is a great thought experiment. What if those who were the movers and shakers of this country all decided to leave or quit?
We tend to get upset at the rich but really we are upset at the wrong people. I see on the news the contempt for the greedy oil companies and terrible big business tycoons. Some of that may be warranted. There are some who have money who are extremely unethical. Does that give the government the right to take away what they've earned?
Where is the outcry condemning those who have earned nothing and live off the government programs because they have learned how to manipulate the system? If a single mother gets her foodstamps taken away everyone cries injustice. No one asks why she doesn't have a job? Does she really need that much in food stamps? Did she also hit up the 5 food banks in town? Can she pass a drug test? What kind of values is she passing onto her children?
There is a cry of injustice when a woman we know nothing about gets a privilage taken from her that she never earned, but there is no cry of injustice when a man who has worked his way up from poverty to provide for his family for generations gets his wealth that he earned taken from him.
Russia was guilty of the same thing before it's ultimate doom and collapse. They did it under the name of Communism, we are doing it under the name of social justice. Same process, same properties, same results.
So What?
So what is my point? My point is that we as a nation have adopted an attitude of entitlement over work ethic. We no longer reward people for work and we no longer expect people to work. We are a country of over-consumers, but we are slowly losing our ability to produce. All this is brought to you by the government and those who ignorantly voted for our current politicians.
We live in a country where the government stopped a large resource provider and job provider because it didn't fit their perfect plan or their philosophy. The Keystone XL pipeline was rejected by our government even though it would have undoubtedly brought jobs and economic growth to this country.
Why? A big reason is the environmental concerns. I understand and believe firmly that we need to be good stewards of the environment. However the government is preventing growth for this reason without offering an alternate solution.
We live in a country that believes that everyone should get free health care and never earn any of it. The truth is that health care costs money. Those who work get money. Therefore if you want health care, get a job and pay for it. Are the costs high? Absolutely. Ever since the government got it's hands involved in the system costs have continued to skyrocket and they will only get higher with more regulation and government imposition.
Our educational system is the same with no promise of a good future. There will be a student loan bubble and it will burst bigger than the housing collapse could ever dream.
We live in a country that won't allow the companies they favor to collapse, instead they will prop them up with fake dollars printed on worthless paper to maintain the allusion of security.
We live in a country that won't allow a company to close it's doors because it's workers are being unreasonable. Because the fear is that too many will not have jobs. The reality is that if those who had the jobs worked hard and did a good job and accepted a reasonable compensation for their work, then the company wouldn't have been in financial trouble. Instead of letting them close the doors, the courts tried to force them to stay open.
Our government is too involved and too controlling. The freedom that we talk about these days is a modified freedom that comes with the bureaucratic interpretation of the week. The red tape jungle of Washington is what stands between us a true freedom.
I write this not because I'm bored or because I want to be heard. I write this because for the first time in my life I actually see doom on the horizon. For the first time I want to shout from a mountain top to warn people of the on coming flood. My only hope is that people, at least some people, will listen. My realistic side wonders if it's not already too late.
I've never been one to overreact. I remember watching the 2006 AFC Championship game between the Colts and Patriots. Growing up in Indiana made me a pretty big Colts fan. Going into halftime the Colts were losing 21-6. The Patriots had scored three touchdowns and the Colts hadn't scored one. No team had ever come back from that score in a championship game. The odds were completely against the team I was cheering for.
Everyone watching the game with me was convinced that the Colts were done for. They had lost hope. My reaction was not the same as my friends. I've always believe it's not over till it's over. There's always hope until the last second. Some may say it's a naive demeanor, but I believe it's a realistic optimism.
I also tend to be a realist. I don't give up hope easily, but I always look at cost vs. reward. I look at odds and possibilities and acknowledge the chance of failure. Some have seen that as pessimism but it is very different. Acknowledging the possibility or even probability of failure is not the same as losing hope or admitting defeat. It is most definitely not seeing the world through a negative lens.
I have always looked down on those who prophesied doom and gloom, those who predicted the collapse of a nation because of public policy changes, religious perception or economic fluctuation. I believe that more often than not paranoia causes chaos for no reason. This world functions with an ebb and flow. Like the tides it can be high or low, but it's always moving toward one or the other and then back again.
I don't like to overreact. I like to be a realist and an optimistic one, but I must admit that it is getting more and more difficult everyday in this country to remain an optimist. The reality is not always that optimistic. The media these days tends to focus on the problems overseas. We hear about countries in Europe going bankrupt as the media shows us that things aren't as bad here as they are over there. We see on our TV and computer screens pictures of war torn countries and we can see that things aren't as bad here as they are over there. We hear about innocent people being attacked everyday by terrorists and once again we are reminded that things are always worse over there.
The problem is that over there is now coming here. I write this at the risk of sounding like an extremist and an overreactor. We are now living in a country that is no longer doing the things that once made it the envy of the world. This country is now doing the exact opposite of those things. We prospered because we allowed individuals to work hard and excel. We had an economic system that rewarded patience and hard work. We had a system of government that actually governed without excess control. These things are now a thing of the past.
This past election has proven that the American people no longer want this type of government. They want a government that does not govern but coddles. They want an economy that does not reward but redistributes. They want system that does not encourage hard work and ingenuity but gives to everyone equally no matter their effort.
This is not the country that was formed by our founding fathers. I can tell you that if the vote for President was left to our founding fathers we would have had a drastically different outcome. I don't just say that because I disagree with President Obama's political philosophy. I say it because of the very words of some of those who helped to form this nation.
At this point I want to make it very clear that I am not condeming any individuals. I do not hate President Obama. I do not think he is a bad person or that he is evil. I simply disagree with his political philosophy. I believe that his ideas, if allowed to be carried out to fruition, will destroy this nation and many livelihoods in the process.
Benjamin Franklin
In the words of Benjamin Franklin, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” Some reasons people voted for Obama were things like "free" health care, cheaper college, cheaper housing and a stimulated economy that puts more money in my pockets regardless of how hard I work for it. All this provided through the means of government programs and government intervention.
Many people voted not for Obama or for the Democrat or for who was best fit to run this country. Many people voted, instead, for money in their own pocket. Money for themselves. This is what Franklin told us would be the warning sign for the end of this government.
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson wrote many things in his life. One of the most popular and more important was the Declaration of Independence. His ideas were foremost in the forming of this nation. He also wrote that, “A wise and frugal government … shall leave [men] otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
According to Jefferson, a good government does not take from those who work and earn money to give to those who do not. He never says not to give to those who are in need. He simply stated that this is not the role of government. According to Jefferson, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare..."
It is not within the scope of congress or our government to provide for general welfare of it's citizens and yet we currently have an entire section of our government that does nothing but that. To do this a government would need, what seemed to Jefferson, unlimited powers and more then likely an equal amount of resources. Since we as a country are determined to have our government assume these responsibilities we must also realize that those resources are taken directly from us. More importantly and even more disturbing is that the government must get its power to do this by taking it from us along with outr paychecks.
James Madison
James Madison had strong feelings about this as well. According to him, “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
This means that Madison was against the idea of a system governed by our Constitution that provided for "general welfare." To do so would change the very nature of the Constitution into something that not even it's authors would recognize. This is a strong statement against what our country is currently doing.
If that were not clear enough he also wrote that, "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” And yet our politicians now run entire campaigns completely on how they are going to use the money of the rich to help those less fortunate. That sounds a lot like charity to me.
The idea that we must provide health care to those who need it, can't afford it or who are too lazy to work for it, sounds a lot like charity to me. Bad charity, but charity none the less.
Philanthropy in Government
Philanthropy is not a function of our government, nor should it ever be. There are many who like to point out that the invention of government intervention has squelched the human initiative to help his fellow man. Charitable giving dropped after both the beginning of the New Deal and the Great Society programs. The government involvement as, for some reason, caused others to stop giving.
There are many reasons why this could be. One of the more popular theories is that one might think, "if the government is going to take it from me anyway and give it to them, then why should I give at all?" But there's really no way to point to one thought and say that's why.
The biggest point is the use of the funds. Is it possible to eliminate poverty? I do not believe so. It would be nice if it were, but no one has found a way to do it in all of human history. I highly doubt that a new policy change in our government will make much of a difference.
The government is known for it's ability to mismanage money, go into debt and add unnecessary policies and procedures that are costly. If I was hiring a man to manage my finances, I would not hire the man who ran a company millions of dollars in debt. Our government does not manage our tax dollars well and that point has never been more clear. Why would we allow them to use those same tax dollars to "help" those in need.
If I donated ten thousand dollars to a charity and then found out that the director of that charity had their own private jet, expense account, private secretary, "company" car etc. I would stop donating to that charity. Obviously a large portion of my money is going to someone who clearly doesn't need charity. Why don't people get equally get upset about the government creating and expending the overhead costs of our imposed charitable tax dollars?
We fail to use the same logic when thinking about our government that we use in everyday life with everything else.
The point is that the more the government tries to mandate helping others, the less others really get help.
Atlas
Ayn Rand wrote a book called Atlas Shrugged. It's been a best seller multiple times and it is a great thought experiment. What if those who were the movers and shakers of this country all decided to leave or quit?
We tend to get upset at the rich but really we are upset at the wrong people. I see on the news the contempt for the greedy oil companies and terrible big business tycoons. Some of that may be warranted. There are some who have money who are extremely unethical. Does that give the government the right to take away what they've earned?
Where is the outcry condemning those who have earned nothing and live off the government programs because they have learned how to manipulate the system? If a single mother gets her foodstamps taken away everyone cries injustice. No one asks why she doesn't have a job? Does she really need that much in food stamps? Did she also hit up the 5 food banks in town? Can she pass a drug test? What kind of values is she passing onto her children?
There is a cry of injustice when a woman we know nothing about gets a privilage taken from her that she never earned, but there is no cry of injustice when a man who has worked his way up from poverty to provide for his family for generations gets his wealth that he earned taken from him.
Russia was guilty of the same thing before it's ultimate doom and collapse. They did it under the name of Communism, we are doing it under the name of social justice. Same process, same properties, same results.
So What?
So what is my point? My point is that we as a nation have adopted an attitude of entitlement over work ethic. We no longer reward people for work and we no longer expect people to work. We are a country of over-consumers, but we are slowly losing our ability to produce. All this is brought to you by the government and those who ignorantly voted for our current politicians.
We live in a country where the government stopped a large resource provider and job provider because it didn't fit their perfect plan or their philosophy. The Keystone XL pipeline was rejected by our government even though it would have undoubtedly brought jobs and economic growth to this country.
Why? A big reason is the environmental concerns. I understand and believe firmly that we need to be good stewards of the environment. However the government is preventing growth for this reason without offering an alternate solution.
We live in a country that believes that everyone should get free health care and never earn any of it. The truth is that health care costs money. Those who work get money. Therefore if you want health care, get a job and pay for it. Are the costs high? Absolutely. Ever since the government got it's hands involved in the system costs have continued to skyrocket and they will only get higher with more regulation and government imposition.
Our educational system is the same with no promise of a good future. There will be a student loan bubble and it will burst bigger than the housing collapse could ever dream.
We live in a country that won't allow the companies they favor to collapse, instead they will prop them up with fake dollars printed on worthless paper to maintain the allusion of security.
We live in a country that won't allow a company to close it's doors because it's workers are being unreasonable. Because the fear is that too many will not have jobs. The reality is that if those who had the jobs worked hard and did a good job and accepted a reasonable compensation for their work, then the company wouldn't have been in financial trouble. Instead of letting them close the doors, the courts tried to force them to stay open.
Our government is too involved and too controlling. The freedom that we talk about these days is a modified freedom that comes with the bureaucratic interpretation of the week. The red tape jungle of Washington is what stands between us a true freedom.
I write this not because I'm bored or because I want to be heard. I write this because for the first time in my life I actually see doom on the horizon. For the first time I want to shout from a mountain top to warn people of the on coming flood. My only hope is that people, at least some people, will listen. My realistic side wonders if it's not already too late.
~
Thursday, November 22, 2012
0
comments